Murray State's Digital Commons

Murray State Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

2018

Testing Performance as it Relates to Academic Self-Concept and Test Anxiety in Students with andwithout ADHDKyrstin Sutton-Davis

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd

Part of the Psychology Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Murray State's Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inMurray State Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Murray State's Digital Commons. For more information, please contactmsu.digitalcommons@murraystate.edu.

Recommended CitationSutton-Davis, Kyrstin, "Testing Performance as it Relates to Academic Self-Concept and Test Anxiety in Students with and withoutADHD" (2018). Murray State Theses and Dissertations. 74.https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/74

i

Testing Performance as it Relates to Academic Self-Concept and Test

Anxiety in Students with and without ADHD

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Psychology

Murray State University

Murray, Kentucky

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

of Masters of Arts in Clinical Psychology

by Kyrstin Sutton-Davis

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter I: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter II: Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter III: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Chapter IV: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Appendix A: Informed Consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Appendix B: The Test Anxiety Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Appendix C: Academic Self-Concept Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Appendix D: Demographic Information Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Appendix E: IRB Approval Letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of scores among participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Table 2: Correlations of scores among participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

iv

Abstract

Students who are diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADHD) comprise 25% of students with disabilities who receive educational

accommodations in post-secondary settings, and represent roughly 2 - 4% of college

students (Weyandt et al., 2013). However, there are mixed results regarding the efficacy

of testing accommodations, specifically extended time, and whether these

accommodations may offer an advantage to students with ADHD (Gregg & Nelson,

2012). In addition to extended test time, students with ADHD commonly use minimal

disturbance rooms. However, there is little research regarding the efficacy of the

accommodation. The relationship among academic self-concept, test anxiety, test

performance, and testing environment (testing alone vs. in a group) among students with

and without ADHD was examined. Test performance of 67 college students with and

without ADHD was compared at three time intervals: 10, 15, and 20 minutes.

Participants also completed the Academic Self-Concept Scale, the Test Anxiety

Inventory, and the ACT English test. Overall, students with ADHD obtained lower scores

across all time conditions; however, the number of completed test questions did not differ

based on disorder. There was no significant effect or interaction for testing environment.

Based on the findings, extended time accommodations may offer an advantage to

students with ADHD by allowing them to answer more test questions. The efficacy of

minimal disturbance rooms needs to continue to be explored in future studies.

1

Chapter I: Literature Review

According to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, individuals must be

granted access to major life activities, despite any limitations due to their disability

(Byrnes, 2008). One life activity that is covered under this statute is educational

opportunity. As such, educational accommodations aim to remove barriers of

performance that are due to an individual’s disability so individuals are able to

demonstrate their ability or knowledge (Byrnes, 2008; “Disability Employment,” n.d.).

The National Center on Educational Outcomes defines accommodations as adjustments

in test materials or procedures that allow students to participate in assessments so that

their abilities are being measured, rather than their disabilities (“Accommodations for

students”, n.d.). Academic accommodations may include dictated response, which may

mean writing down what the student says for an exam, or having someone else take notes

for the student (Byrnes, 2008). Large print materials or Braille materials may also be

academic accommodations for students. Byrnes (2008) mentions preferential seating as

an academic accommodation, in which students may be allowed to sit in a particular area

of the classroom in order to better facilitate their learning. Accommodations of test

materials may include having the test items read to the student (Harrison, Bunford,

Evans, & Owens, 2013), extended time on tests, or taking a test in a minimal disturbance

room (Ofiesh, Moniz, & Bisagno, 2015), among other options. For the purpose of this

study, the author will focus on extended time and minimal disturbance room

accommodations.

2

Students who are diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADHD) comprise 25% of students with disabilities who receive educational

accommodations in post-secondary settings, and represent roughly 2 - 4% of college

students (Weyandt et al., 2013). ADHD is a neuropsychological disorder that is

characterized by inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that begins in childhood and

interferes with an individual’s daily functioning (American Psychiatric Association,

2013). Although ADHD begins during childhood, a significant proportion of individuals

with ADHD continue to experience impairment well into adulthood (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013). For instance, students with ADHD in post-secondary

settings are more likely to be on academic probation, have lower grade point averages,

have lower levels of self-esteem (Lee, Osborne, & Carpenter, 2010; Weyandt & DuPaul,

2006) and have more difficulty managing time compared to their peers without ADHD

(Weyandt et al., 2013). Compared to students with ADHD who do not use university

services for students with disabilities, students who do utilize these services perform

better academically (Lee et al., 2010). Of these services, testing accommodations are used

the most consistently for individuals who have ADHD and learning disabilities

(Tagayuna, Stodden, Chang, Zeleznik, & Whelley, 2005). These testing accommodations

most often include extended time and testing in a minimal disturbance room (Lee et al.,

2010).

Extended Time

In a focus group of college students with ADHD, students reported using

extended time to relieve symptoms of ADHD. Specifically, students with ADHD

reported using extended time to take a break due to difficulties with distractibility and

3

maintaining attention, to move around, to self-monitor time, or a combination of these

(Ofiesh et al., 2015). Despite the common use of this testing accommodation, there is

much debate regarding whether extended test time is appropriately compensating for the

disability or providing an advantage to individuals with disabilities (Gregg & Nelson,

2012). Alster (1997) found that students with learning disabilities (LD) performed

significantly better on an algebra test under extended-time conditions than under regular-

timed conditions. He also found that the test scores from the extended-time conditions of

students with learning disabilities did not differ significantly from the scores of students

without learning disabilities in either time condition. These findings suggest that

extended time is effective in improving test scores for individuals with LDs, but it does

not result in an advantage for students with LDs over students without LDs. However,

Alster (1997) used an elementary algebra test for this study; therefore, the results may not

be representative of students performance on more difficult tasks they would experience

in the college setting.

Extended time is also a popular accommodation for students with ADHD (Miller,

Lewandowski, & Antshel, 2015; Ofiesh et al., 2015). Specifically, Wadley and Liljequist

(2013) found that extended time did not result in significantly better test scores on a

college math placement test for individuals with ADHD compared to their counterparts

without ADHD; however, compared to peers without ADHD, students with ADHD took

more time to complete the test, had lower state self-esteem, and attained lower test

scores. These results suggest that extended time may not be providing a benefit to

students with ADHD regarding their academic performance. Wadley and Liljequist

(2013) noted that the math test they used included difficult items and was not a “high

4

stakes” test; therefore, it is possible students may not have been as motivated to put in the

same amount of effort they would engage in for a university exam. However, there are

still clear differences between students with and without ADHD outside of academic

performance. It may be that the non-academic difficulties that students with ADHD

experience negatively affect their academic performance in ways that extended time

accommodations are not addressing. For example, self-esteem has been found to be

correlated with school performance, albeit weakly, so that individuals with higher self-

esteem usually perform better than individuals with lower self-esteem (Baumeister,

Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).

Conversely, a study conducted by Miller and colleagues (2015) found that

students with ADHD performed similarly to students without ADHD on tests when

allowed standard time, time and one half, and double time. However, the authors found

that extended time gave an advantage to students with ADHD, in that students with

ADHD who received extended time were able to answer significantly more test items

than their peers without ADHD who received standard test time. Another study found

that extended time, specifically double time, benefited students with LDs when given

only to LD students (Lewandowski, Cohen, & Lovett, 2013). However, students without

LDs benefited more from extended time than students with LDs when both groups were

offered extra time (Lewandowski et al., 2013). Based on the results of these studies,

extended time seems to level the playing field for students with LDs and ADHD, up to a

certain point; once students with LDs and ADHD are offered double time, the extended

test time accommodation may then offer an advantage over their non-disabled peers.

5

Both of the aforementioned studies used the Nelson-Denny reading test for high school

and college adults.

The discrepancy in the literature that extended time seems to sometimes help and

other times not help students with ADHD perform better academically may be due to

differences in performance on mathematical tests versus reading tests for individuals with

an LD and/or ADHD diagnosis. It is possible that students with an LD and/or ADHD

diagnosis perform better on reading-based tests than they do on mathematical tests, in

general.

The discrepancy may also be due to the level of difficulty of the tests (i.e., an

elementary-level test versus a college-level test). It is possible that students with ADHD

may not experience difficulties related to their symptomology on non-challenging

academic tasks, such as a test that is intended for a lower grade level than the student’s

current academic placement. On the other hand, as noted by Wadley and Liljequist

(2013), students may not put forth the same amount of effort on difficult tests that are not

“high stakes” tests, which may lead to inaccurate results. If students with ADHD did not

put forth the amount of effort they would have for a “high stakes” exam, it is possible

their scores may have been artificially lowered in the study. It is also possible that the

same is true for the students without ADHD. It may be the case that students without

ADHD would normally perform significantly better than students with ADHD, when

they put forth the optimal amount of effort on academic exams.

Similarly, students’ perceived competence of the test material or their level of

academic self-concept may impact their performance. Research has found that

individuals’ levels of academic self-concept are related to whether they attribute success

6

to internal or external factors (Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). It has been suggested that

individuals who have higher academic self-concept are more likely to attribute their

success to internal factors, therefore gaining more satisfaction with their academic

performance and leading them to put forth more effort on academic tasks (Tabassam &

Grainger, 2002). Therefore, it is possible that students who do not believe they will

perform well on a test do not put forth the same amount of effort as someone who

believes they will perform well. This lack of effort then negatively affects their test score.

Minimal Disturbance Rooms

In addition to extended test time, students with ADHD commonly use minimal

disturbance rooms, which help relieve symptoms similar to those alleviated by extended

test time. Some of these symptoms include distractibility, inattention, the need for

movement, and lack of focus (Ofiesh et al., 2015). In one study, after students completed

a reading test, students reported preferring a quiet, isolated environment for testing (Lee,

Osborne, Hayes, & Simoes, 2008). One student stated that any background noises distract

him/her because he/she “gives equal attention to everything around [him/her]” (p. 135).

Another student reported he/she liked how quiet the room was and that no one else was in

the room.

Although minimal disturbance rooms are a popular testing accommodation, there

is little research regarding the efficacy of the accommodation. It is possible that the

benefits of this accommodation may be at least partially explained by the social

facilitation effect. According to Guerin (1983), social facilitation occurs when an animal

increases or decreases its behavior in the presence of another animal that it does not

otherwise interact with. Furthermore, Zajonc (1965) proposed that social presence either

7

improves or impairs performance. Specifically, the performance of simple tasks is

improved by social presence, while the performance of complex tasks is impaired by

social presence. One of the theories that explains why performance is improved or

impaired by social performance is the Distraction-Conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Baron,

Moor, & Sanders, 1978; Groff, Baron, & Moore, 1983; Sanders & Baron, 1975). The

theory explains that social presence acts as a distractor and creates a conflict with the

individual’s attention between the task and the social presence. For instance, the

individual’s desire to complete the task competes with factors of social presence such as

social comparison or the need to monitor for threats. This attentional conflict then results

in a cognitive overload or an increased drive, either of which results in the impaired

performance of complex tasks. Because individuals with ADHD are prone to attentional

difficulties, these individuals may experience more impaired performance in a group

testing environment, compared to individuals without ADHD. The benefit of minimal

disturbance rooms may then be the lack of social presence, preventing an individual from

experiencing cognitive overload and resulting in impaired test performance.

Test Anxiety

In addition to causing impairments in academic functioning, ADHD is commonly

comorbid with anxiety disorders, with prevalence rates of comorbid anxiety disorders

ranging from 15% to 35% (Kessler et al., 2006; Klassen, Katzman, & Chokka 2010;

Schatz & Rostain, 2006). Researchers have also found that adults with ADHD are more

likely to perceive test-taking problems (Ofiesh et al., 2015). Specifically, they typically

report feeling that they did not perform well on standardized tests and report difficulty

finishing timed tests.

8

Dan and Raz (2012) found an association between test anxiety and ADHD. Test

anxiety occurs when an individual is being evaluated by an examination and he/she has a

specific reaction to the examination situation, such as an emotional, cognitive,

behavioral, or physiological reaction (Dan & Raz, 2012). These reactions to the

examination situation may also be present while students are preparing for the test

(Cohen, Ben-Zur, & Rosenfeld, 2008). Research has repeatedly found negative

associations between test anxiety and overall test performance, academic achievement,

and intellectual aptitude tests (Chapell et al., 2005; Zeidner, 1998). Specifically, research

indicates that students who have test anxiety do not perform to their full potential,

resulting in test scores that do not accurately represent their knowledge and

understanding of the test material (Shobe, Brewin, & Carmak, 2005). Test anxiety can

also manifest itself through worry and self-denigrating thoughts (Damer & Melendres,

2011). In conjunction with self-denigrating thoughts, test anxiety has been found to have

an inverse relationship with self-esteem (Dan & Raz, 2012; Thomas & Gadbois, 2007).

Academic Self-Concept

Another common area of impairment for individuals with ADHD is self-esteem

(Dan & Raz 2012; Biederman, 2005). Studies have also found that students with an LD

and/or ADHD tend to have lower academic self-concept, which is a specific domain of

self-esteem, compared to their non-disabled peers (Tabassam & Grainger, 2002).

Academic self-concept can be defined as a combination of feelings and beliefs regarding

one’s general academic functioning (Choi, 2005). A study of college students found that

academic self-concept significantly predicted academic achievement measured by

students’ grades, which were based on several tests and quizzes in the course (Choi,

9

2005). Based on their findings, the authors suggested that college students who have a

higher degree of academic self-concept tend to perform better academically than students

who have a lower degree of academic self-concept. However, it is possible that students

who perform well academically have higher academic self-concept due to their academic

success. Although the direction of the association between academic self-concept and

academic performance is unclear, it is possible that lower levels of academic self-concept

experienced by students with ADHD could be a contributing factor to the academic

difficulties these individuals experience.

The focus of the present study was on the relationship among academic self-

concept, test anxiety, and test performance among college students with and without

ADHD. Because self-reports of students with ADHD indicate a preference for testing in

minimal disturbance rooms, students’ test performance was examined in relation to the

testing environment. Specifically, whether the test performance of students with ADHD

differs when they test alone, as in a minimal disturbance room, versus taking the test

among a group of other students, as in a traditional classroom setting, was examined.

It was hypothesized that:

1. Students with ADHD who took the test alone would complete more test questions

and obtain higher scores than students with ADHD who tested in a group.

2. Students without ADHD would complete more test questions and obtain higher

scores than students with ADHD in the group testing situation.

3. Students with ADHD would report higher levels of test anxiety than students

without ADHD (Dan & Raz, 2012); students with ADHD would also report lower

10

levels of academic self-concept than students without ADHD (Tabassam &

Grainger, 2002).

4. Students who endorsed higher levels of test anxiety would obtain lower scores

than students who endorsed lower levels of test anxiety (Shobe, Brewin, &

Carmak, 2005).

5. Students who endorsed lower levels of academic self-concept would obtain lower

scores than students who endorsed higher levels of academic self-concept (Choi,

2005).

11

Chapter II: Methods

Participants

235 participants completed the online portion of the study; however, 144

participants did not complete the in person portion of the study and were therefore

excluded from the study. Of the remaining 91 participants who completed both portions

of the study, 24 participants did not provide the information needed to collect all of their

data and were excluded from the study. The final sample consisted of 67 undergraduate

and graduate students from Murray State University; 11 participants were recruited

through the Murray State University office of Student Disability Services (SDS), and 52

participants were recruited through an online research recruiting system and via

psychology courses. All participants were eligible to win one of four $10 Visa gift cards,

regardless of recruitment method. Participants were required to sign up for the study

online and be present on the day the study was scheduled.

Of the participants, 73% were female and 27% were male. The majority were

Caucasian (89.55%), followed by biracial (5.97%), Hispanic (2.98%), and African

American (1.49%). The average age of participants was 20.58 years (SD = 4.73), ranging

from 18 to 51 years. Participants (N = 22) reported they had previously received a

diagnosis of ADHD and 10 of the 22 participants reported they were taking ADHD

medication at the time of the study. Five participants reported they were receiving testing

12

accommodations through SDS at the time of the study and three participants reported

they had previously received testing accommodations.

Materials

Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI). The Test Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al.,

1980; see Appendix B) is a 20-item self-report inventory that is intended to measure

individual differences in test anxiety, which is seen as a situation-specific personality trait

(Taylor & Deane, 2002). Using a 4-point Likert scale, individuals indicate how often they

experience certain symptoms of anxiety before, during, and after tests, with higher scores

indicating higher levels of test anxiety. A total score is calculated that measures

susceptibility to anxiety related to test situations. Two subscales are included in the

inventory: the TAI/E (emotionality, α = .91) and the TAI/W (worry, α = .91). Studies

have shown that the TAI has good concurrent and construct validity, as well as test-retest

and internal-consistency reliability (α = .93; Taylor & Deane, 2002).

Academic Self-Concept Scale (ASCS). The Academic Self-Concept Scale

(Reynolds, 1988; see Appendix C) is a 40-item self-report inventory for use with college

students to assess for an academic aspect of self-concept. The ASCS uses a 4-point Likert

scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4), with higher scores

indicating higher levels of academic self-concept. Previous research has indicated a

strong internal consistency reliability of α = .91 (Reynolds, Ramirez, Magriña, & Allen,

1980). The validity of the scale was assessed through correlations of the ASCS and GPA

(.40) and the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (.45). A multiple regression analysis of the

ASCS with GPA and scores on the Rosenberg scale resulted in a multiple correlation of

13

.64, which increased to .67 when SAT scores were added to the regression equation

(Reynolds et al., 1980).

Practice American College Testing (ACT) English Test. The American College

Testing (ACT) is a standardized test that assesses students’ academic achievement and

readiness for college. It consists of four tests of educational development that are

curriculum-based, one of which is English (Allen & Sconing, 2005). The ACT English

Test is a 45-minute test that consists of 75 questions that measures individuals’

understanding of standard English conventions, such as sentence structure, punctuation,

and word usage. The test also measures knowledge of language, such as tone, word

choice, and style, as well as production of writing, which includes topic development,

unity, organization, and cohesion. The test is comprised of multiple-choice questions that

accompany five essays, or passages (“About the ACT”, n.d.). This particular ACT

English Test came from the 2005-2006 version of the ACT and was retrieved from an

open access online ACT practice test site.

A 1995 study of a nationally representative sample of twelfth-grade students

produced a reliability of α = .92 for the ACT English Test (ACT, 2014). The ACT

Technical Manual (2014) reports the ACT has good content-related validity in predicting

students’ success in college by measuring their problem-solving skills and knowledge in

particular subject areas.

Demographic Information Form. The demographic information form consisted of

9 questions, as well as age, gender, grade level, race, GPA, and SAT/ACT score

(Appendix D). The form has yes or no questions regarding ADHD diagnosis and

medication, treatment for anxiety and related medication, as well as learning disability

14

diagnosis and testing accommodations. There are 2 open-ended questions allowing

participants to describe any testing accommodation they currently or have previously

received.

Procedure

Participants completed the first portion of the study online. Before beginning the

study, participants read the informed consent form and gave their consent, then they

completed the ASCS (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to enter a three- or four-

digit identification code or their SONA ID, after which they were randomly directed to

one of two websites to schedule the in person portion of the study. One website offered

times and dates for the individual testing condition and the other website offered times

and dates for the group testing condition, regardless of diagnosis.

During the in person portion, participants provided their SONA ID or their three-

or four -digit identification number to the experimenter the day of the study and were

offered the opportunity to enter into the gift card drawing. Once participants entered the

drawing, the experimenter handed participants the same informed consent form they

signed online. Once all participants arrived, the experimenter allowed participants to ask

questions concerning the informed consent, then provided directions. Participants were

given 20 minutes to complete as much of the ACT English test as they could and were

asked to mark their progress at 10 and 15 minutes. At the end of the 20-minute duration,

participants completed the TAI (Spielberger et al., 1980), followed by the demographic

information form (see Appendix D).

15

Chapter III: Results

All analyses were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance. To test the first part

of hypothesis one (students with ADHD who test alone will complete more test questions

than students with ADHD who tested in a group), a 2 (ADHD vs. non-ADHD) x 2 (alone

vs. group) x 3 (number of completed questions at 10, 15, and 20 minutes) mixed-model

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. Results indicated there was no significant

interaction (F(2, 67) = 1.98, p = 0.14). To test the second part of hypothesis one (students

with ADHD who test alone will obtain higher scores than students with ADHD who test

in a group), a 2 (ADHD vs. non-ADHD) x 2 (alone vs. group) x 3 (performance at 10, 15,

and 20 minutes) mixed-model ANOVA was used. Results indicated there was no

significant interaction (F(2, 67) = 0.14, p = 0.15). The same analyses were used to test the

first part of hypothesis two (students without ADHD who test in a group will complete

more test questions than students with ADHD who test in a group) and the second part of

hypothesis two (students without ADHD will obtain higher scores than students with

ADHD who test in a group). No interaction was found for the first or second part of

hypothesis two (F(2, 67) = 0.02, p = 0.98; F(1, 67) = 1.01, p = 0.32). These results

indicate diagnosis and testing condition, combined did not impact performance in this

study. However, students with ADHD had lower scores than students without ADHD,

16

regardless of testing condition (F(1, 63) = 7.22, p = 0.009), suggesting diagnosis has a

greater impact on test performance than testing environment. This pattern held (i.e. the

only significant difference was test score based on disorder) when analyses were run as a

series of 2 x 2 ANOVAs. Means and standard deviations appear in Table 1.

Contrary to hypothesis three, students with ADHD did not report higher levels of

test anxiety (t(62) = -0.36, p = 0.72) or lower levels of academic self-concept (t(62) =

1.17, p = 0.24) than students without ADHD. These results indicate students with and

without ADHD may experience similar levels of test anxiety and ADHD may not have as

much of an impact on academic self-concept as previously believed. Although

Hypothesis five was supported (students who endorse lower levels of academic self-

concept will obtain lower scores than students who endorse higher levels of academic

self-concept), the results were not statistically significant (r = 0.25, p = 0.05).

However, hypothesis four (students who endorse higher levels of test anxiety will

obtain lower scores than students who endorse lower levels of test anxiety) was supported

(r = -0.35, p < 0.001), meaning higher levels of test anxiety were positively correlated

with lower overall test scores. Correlations appear in Table 2.

17

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of scores participants.

ADHD Non-ADHD

Alone

n = 8

Group

n = 14

Alone

n = 18

Group

n = 27

Variables M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

ACT Score 24.00(3.05) 23.08(3.37) 26.20(3.78) 23.64(3.61)

GPA 3.10(7.90) 3.18(5.87) 3.35(5.99) 3.33(5.26)

TAI Score 45.37(11.03) 50.00(12.01) 45.31(11.94) 48.19(14.49)

ASCS Score 102.62(5.34) 106.85(7.29) 107.00(5.70) 107.22(5.81)

Correct at 10a

Correct at 15a

Correct at 20a

68.87(15.79)

67.37(15.17)

67.00(15.55)

65.93(16.59)

63.36(16.78)

62.50(16.67)

75.89(12.77)

72.72(13.85)

72.83(13.95)

80.22(13.18)

76.95(12.37)

75.96(12.29)

Completed at 10 30.75(9.13) 27.93(6.92) 29.72(9.95) 28.56(9.47)

Completed at 15 42.62(13.89) 41.57(9.72) 44.28(9.95) 42.37(12.64)

Completed at 20 50.12(10.66) 52.28(12.64) 56.44(12.43) 52.92(11.28)

Note: aProportion of correct answers at different time intervals

18

Table 2.

Correlations of scores among participants| (N = 67)

Variables TAI Scoreb ASCS Scoreb Correct at 20a GPAc ACT Scorec

TAI Scoreb — 0.25

p = 0.05

-0.35

p = 0.004

0.05

p = 0.71

-0.13

p = 0.34

ASCS Scoreb — — 0.06

p = 0.60

-0.03

p = 0.82

0.17

p = 0.18

Correct at 20a — — — 0.24

p = 0.06

0.63

p < 0.0001

GPAc — — — — 0.19

p = 0.18

Note: aProportion of correct answers at different time intervals. bN = 64. cN = 59

19

Chapter IV: Discussion

Overall, students with ADHD obtained lower test scores than students without

ADHD, regardless of testing condition. However, students who tested alone did not

perform better than students who tested in a group. This finding does not support the

Distraction-Conflict theory—the idea that social presence divides an individual’s

attention between the task at hand and the social presence (Baron, 1986; Baron, Moor, &

Sanders, 1978; Groff, Baron, & Moore, 1983; Sanders & Baron, 1975). This suggests the

presence of others may not hold as much of an impact on performance as previously

hypothesized. It may be that the presence of others only acts as a distractor or divides an

individual’s attention when the task at hand is a “high stakes” task, such as a midterm or

final exam. As this study did not have any potential negative outcome for participants, it

can be considered a “low stakes” task and may not accurately represent students’

academic performance.

Similar to the findings of Chapell and colleagues (2005) and Zeidner (1998),

students who scored higher on the TAI performed worse on the ACT English test.

However, students with ADHD did not report higher levels of test anxiety than students

without ADHD. This suggests students with ADHD and students without ADHD may

experience similar difficulties regarding test performance and that testing

accommodations may indeed offer an advantage to students with ADHD by potentially

alleviating test anxiety that is also experienced by students without ADHD. Ofiesh and

20

colleagues (2015) found students with ADHD perceived more test taking difficulties, and

Dan and Raz (2012) found students with ADHD reported higher levels of test anxiety

than students without ADHD. Minimal disturbance rooms and extended time

accommodations may decrease test anxiety among students with ADHD so that they

experience similar levels of test anxiety as their peers without ADHD. Therefore, these

accommodations may level the playing field for students with ADHD. However, the

number of questions answered at different time intervals did not differ among students

with and without ADHD. This may support Miller and colleagues’ (2015) finding that

extended time accommodations offer an advantage to students with ADHD once they

exceed time and one half.

Contrary to Dan and Raz, (2012) and Thomas and Gadbois (2007), academic self-

concept was positively correlated with test anxiety, meaning students who have higher

levels of academic self-concept also experience higher levels of test anxiety. This may

suggest those who experience higher levels of test anxiety are driven to put more effort

into academic tasks, compared to those who experience less anxiety towards tests and

school work. The extra effort these individuals put into academic tasks may then enhance

their academic self-concept. However, the effects of test anxiety may not have been

accurately represented in this study, due to the lack of consequences of poor test

performance.

Limitations

Since the test students took in this study can be considered a “low stakes” task,

the external validity of the study may be a limitation. Students may not have put forth the

same amount of effort during this study as they would have during a class exam, making

21

it difficult to translate these results to typical class performance among students with and

without ADHD. Furthermore, the individual testing condition was not reflective of a

minimal disturbance room environment. Students in both testing conditions completed

the study in a classroom and could occasionally hear noise from the hallway or from

adjacent classrooms. Minimal disturbance rooms are typically in a more secluded area in

order to decrease the level of outside noise.

Of the 235 participants who initially participated in the study, only 91 participants

completed the second in person part of the study. There may have been significant

differences between the participants who completed the study and those who did not. For

instance, the participants who did not complete the second part of the study may have

scored lowered on the ASCS and therefore may have had lower academic motivation and

may have been academically less skilled. This may explain why they did not complete

the in person portion of the study. There may have also been a significant difference

between the 67 participants who completed the study and followed instructions and the

24 participants who did not follow instructions. One of the diagnostic features of ADHD

is not following instructions, therefore it is possible that a portion of those 24 participants

had ADHD and may have significantly differed from the participants who did not have

ADHD.

The low proportion of students who completed both portions of this study created

a power limitation for this study. Many of the results were close to significance and it is

possible more hypotheses would have been supported, had more participants completed

both portions of the study. Therefore, it is possible this study could have fallen in line

with previous research had there been more power.

22

Future Directions

Future studies should try to better simulate minimal disturbance rooms, rather

than testing in an empty classroom. For instance, minimal disturbance rooms are often

small and the student is left alone in the room during the test. In the study, the

experimenter remained in the room with participants in the individual condition and may

have acted as a distraction. The study was conducted in classrooms on the Murray State

University campus, and it may be that part of the reason minimal disturbance rooms seem

to be effective to students is due to the fact that it is simply a different environment than

typical classrooms. In other words, students may perceive that simply being in a different

environment than the classroom helps them focus more.

It would be beneficial for future studies to attempt to create a more “high stakes”

environment for participants in order to increase external validity. One of the limitations

of this study, as well as previous studies (Wadley & Liljequist, 2013), is that the

academic task participants completed did not have any potential negative outcome,

therefore participants may have put forth less effort than they would have for an

academic task that would have impacted their grade. If a study had a perceived negative

outcome, participants may be more likely to put forth the same or similar effort they

would for a class and the results may be more reflective of participants’ typical

performance.

In conclusion, testing alone versus testing in a group did not offer a benefit to

students with or without ADHD in this study. However, one of the limitations of this

study was poor power, meaning the results of this study may have been different, had

there been more participants. On the other hand, based on the number of test questions

23

completed at different time intervals by students with and without ADHD, extended time

accommodations may offer a benefit to individuals with ADHD by allowing them to

complete more test questions; this finding is similar to previous research (Miller et al.,

2015). However, students with ADHD obtained lower scores than students without

ADHD, suggesting there is still a need for testing accommodations. Future studies should

focus more on minimal disturbance rooms and trying to better simulate the “high stakes”

component of class assignments in order to increase external validity.

24

Appendix A

Informed Consent

Project Title: Factors Affecting Test Behavior

Principle Investigator:

Kyrstin Sutton-Davis

Graduate Student, Clinical Psychology

Department of Psychology

Murray State University

401c Wells Hall

Murray, KY 42071

Faculty Mentor:

Laura Liljequist, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

Murray State University

401B Wells Hall

Murray, KY 42071

lliljequist@murraystate.edu

(270) 809-2990

You are being asked to participate in a project conducted through Murray State

University. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate. Below is an explanation of

the purpose of the project, the procedures to be used, and the potential benefits and

possible risks of participation.

Nature and Purpose of Project: The purpose of this study is to gain information about

factors that may affect test behavior among individuals.

Explanation of Procedures: Your participation in this study will involve completing an

anonymous online questionnaire. The online questionnaire should only take 5-10

minutes. Upon completion of the questionnaire, you will be directed to

https://ksuttondavis.youcanbook.me/ to sign up for Part 2 of the study which will be

completed in person. During Part 2 you will complete an academic test, an additional

questionnaire and a demographic information sheet. Part 2 of the study should only take

30 minutes.

Discomfort and Risks: There is minimal to no risk to you as a participant. At most, some

participants may find the questions uncomfortable as you will be asked questions

concerning school-related attitudes, as well as questions concerning symptoms of anxiety.

25

Please remember that your participation is voluntary, and you can refuse to answer any

questions or discontinue your participation at any time with no resulting penalty. You can

stop at any point and exit the survey or close your browser without penalty.

Benefits: There are no direct individual benefits to you beyond the opportunity to learn

first-hand what it is like to participate in a research study and to learn about some of the

methods involved in psychological research. A general benefit is that you will add to our

knowledge of the research subject.

Confidentiality: Your responses on all the tasks will be completely anonymous; they will

only be numerically coded and not recorded in any way that can be identified with

you. Dr. Liljequist will keep all information related to this study secured and locked in a

password protected file for at least three years after completion of this study, after which

all such documents will be destroyed.

Required Statement on Internet Research: All survey responses that the researcher

receives will be treated confidentially and stored on a secure server or hard drive.

However, given that the surveys can be completed from any computer (e.g., personal,

work, school), we are unable to guarantee the security of the computer on which you

choose to enter your responses. As a participant in this study, the researcher wants you to

be aware that certain “keylogging” software programs exist that can be used to track or

capture data that you enter and/or websites that you visit.

Refusal/Withdrawal: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your

refusal to participate will involve no penalty. In addition, you have the right to withdraw

at any time during the study without penalty or prejudice from the researchers. If you

choose to refuse/withdraw at any time you will be shown a post experimental debriefing

statement. Earned experimental inducements will be granted at the end of the study.

By checking “Yes”, I acknowledge that the risks and benefits involved and the need for

the research have been fully explained to me; and that I have been informed that I may

withdraw from participation at any time without prejudice or penalty.

THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE MURRAY

STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) FOR THE

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. ANY QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO

YOUR RIGHTS AS A PARTICIPANT OR ACTIVITY-RELATED INJURY SHOULD

BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE IRB COORDINATOR AT (270) 809-

2916. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THIS RESEARCH PROJECT

SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF DR. LAURA LILJEQUIST IN

THE MSU PSYCHOLOGY DEPT., AT (270) 809-2990.

MSU IRB APPROVED: 2/8/17 EXPIRES: 2/7/18

26

Appendix B

The Test Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1980)

Please rate how frequently you experience these symptoms using the scale below:

1= Almost Never 2= Sometimes 3= Often 4= Almost Always

1. I feel comfortable and relaxed while taking tests. _____

2. While taking examinations I have an uneasy, upset feeling. _____

3. Thinking about my grade in a course interferes with my work on tests. _____

4. I freeze up on important exams. _____

5. During exams I find myself thinking about whether I’ll get through school. _____

6. The harder I work at taking a test, the more confused I get. _____

7. Thoughts of doing poorly interfere with my concentration on tests. _____

8. I feel very jittery when taking an important test. _____

9. Even when I’m well prepared for a test, I feel very nervous about it. _____

10. I start feeling very uneasy just before getting a test paper back. _____

11. During tests I feel very tense. _____

12. I wish examinations did not bother me so much. _____

13. During important tests I am so tense that my stomach gets upset. _____

14. I seem to defeat myself while working on important tasks. _____

15. I feel very panicky when I take an important test. _____

16. I worry a great deal before taking an important examination. _____

17. During tests I find myself thinking about the consequences of failing. _____

18. I feel my heart beating very fast during important tests. _____

19. After an exam is over I try to stop worrying about it, but I can’t. _____

20. During examinations I get so nervous that I forget facts I really know. _____

27

Appendix C

Academic Self-Concept Scale (Reynolds, 1988)

Listed below are a number of statements concerning school-related attitudes. Rate each

item as it pertains to you personally. Base your ratings on how you feel most of the time.

Use the following scale to rate each statement:

SD. Strongly

Disagree

D. Disagree A. Agree SA. Strongly Agree

INDICATE YOUR RESPONSE BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE LETTER(S). Be

sure to answer all items. Please respond to each item independently, do not be influenced

by your previous choices.

1. Being a student is a very rewarding experience.

SD D A SA

2. If I try hard enough, I will be able to get good grades.

SD D A SA

3. Most of the time my efforts in school are rewarded.

SD D A SA

4. No matter how hard I try I do not do well in school.

SD D A SA

5. I often expect to do poorly on exams.

SD D A SA

6. All in all, I feel I am a capable student.

SD D A SA

7. I do well in my courses given the amount of time I dedicate to studying.

SD D A SA

8. My parents are not satisfied with my grades in college.

SD D A SA

9. Others view me as intelligent.

SD D A SA

10. Most courses are very easy for me.

SD D A SA

11. I sometimes feel like dropping out of school.

28

SD D A SA

12. Most of my classmates do better in school than I do.

SD D A SA

13. Most of my instructors think that I am a good student.

SD D A SA

14. At times I feel college is too difficult for me.

SD D A SA

15. All in all, I am proud of my grades in college.

SD D A SA

16. Most of the time while taking a test I feel confident.

SD D A SA

17. I feel capable of helping others with their class work.

SD D A SA

18. I feel teachers’ standards are too high for me.

SD D A SA

19. It is hard for me to keep up with my class work.

SD D A SA

20. I am satisfied with the class assignments that I turn in.

SD D A SA

21. At times I feel like a failure.

SD D A SA

22. I feel I do not study enough before a test.

SD D A SA

23. Most exams are easy for me.

SD D A SA

24. I have doubts that I will do well in my major.

SD D A SA

25. For me, studying hard pays off.

SD D A SA

26. I have a hard time getting through school.

SD D A SA

29

27. I am good at scheduling my study time.

SD D A SA

28. I have a fairly clear sense of my academic goals.

SD D A SA

29. I’d like to be a much better student than I am now.

SD D A SA

30. I often get discouraged about school.

SD D A SA

31. I enjoy doing my homework.

SD D A SA

32. I consider myself a very good student.

SD D A SA

33. I usually get the grades I deserve in my courses.

SD D A SA

34. I do not study as much as I should.

SD D A SA

35. I usually feel on top of my work by finals week.

SD D A SA

36. Others consider me a good student.

SD D A SA

37. I feel that I am better than the average college student.

SD D A SA

38. In most of the courses, I feel that my classmates are better prepared than I am.

SD D A SA

39. I feel that I do not have the necessary abilities for certain courses in my major.

SD D A SA

40. I have poor study habits.

SD D A SA

30

Appendix D

Demographic Information

Age ______ Gender __________

Race ______________ GPA ____________

Grade level ___________________ SAT/ACT Score ______________

1. Have you ever been diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder?

Yes/No

2. Are you currently taking medication for ADHD? Yes/No

3. Have you ever sought therapy or treatment for anxiety? Yes/No

4. Are you currently taking medication for anxiety? Yes/No

5. Have you ever been diagnosed with a learning disorder? Yes/No

6. Are you currently receiving testing accommodations for ADHD and/or a learning

disorder? Yes/No

7. If yes, what kind of accommodations are you receiving?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

8. Have you ever received testing accommodations for ADHD and/or a learning

disorder? Yes/No

9. If yes, what kind of accommodations did you receive?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

31

Appendix E

IRB Approval Letter

TO:

Laura Liljequiest Psychology

FROM:

Institutional Review Board Jonathan Baskin, IRB Coordinator

DATE:

2/8/2017

RE:

Human Subjects Protocol I.D. – IRB # 17-097

The IRB has completed its review of your student's Level 2 protocol entitled Testing Performance as it Relates to Academic Self-Concept and Test Anxiety in Students with and without ADHD. After review and consideration, the IRB has determined that the research, as described in the protocol form, will be conducted in compliance with Murray State University guidelines for the protection of human participants. The forms and materials that have been approved for use in this research study are attached to

the email containing this letter. These are the forms and materials that must be presented to the

subjects. Use of any process or forms other than those approved by the IRB will be considered

misconduct in research as stated in the MSU IRB Procedures and Guidelines section 20.3.

This Level 2 approval is valid until 2/7/2018. If data collection and analysis extends beyond this time period, the research project must be

reviewed as a continuation project by the IRB prior to the end of the approval period,

2/7/2018. You must reapply for IRB approval by submitting a Project Update and Closure form

(available at murraystate.edu/irb). You must allow ample time for IRB processing and decision

prior to your expiration date, or your research must stop until such time that IRB approval is

received. If the research project is completed by the end of the approval period, then a Project

Update and Closure form must be submitted for IRB review so that your protocol may be

closed. It is your responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork in a timely manner.

The protocol is approved. You may begin data collection now.

32

References

About the ACT Test - Individual, State, and District Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved October

30, 2016, from http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act-

educator/about-the-act.html

Accommodations for students with disabilities. Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved October 02,

2016, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/

Accomtopic.htm

ACT (2014). Technical Manual: The ACT. ACT, Inc.

Allen, J. & Sconing, J. (2005). Using ACT Assessment scores to set benchmarks for

college readiness. ACT Incorporated.

Alster, E. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college

students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

30(2), 222-227.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Neurodevelopmental disorders. In Diagnostic

and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th edition). Arlington, VA: American

Psychiatric Publishing.

Baron, R.S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. Advances in

experimental social psychology, 19, 1–40. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60211-7

Baron, R. S., Moor, D., & Sanders, G. S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social

facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 816–824.

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.816

33

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-

esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier

lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Biederman, J. (2005). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A selective overview.

Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1215-1220. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.020

Byrnes, M. A. (2008). Educators’ interpretations of ambiguous accommodations.

Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 306-315. DOI:

10.1177/0741932507313017

Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi,

A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in

undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,

268–274. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268

Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’

academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197-205. DOI:

10.1002/pits.20048

Cohen, M., Ben-Zur, H., & Rosenfeld, M. J. (2008). Sense of coherence, coping

strategies, and test anxiety as predictors of test performance among college

students. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(3), 289–303. DOI:

10.1037/1072-5245.15.3.289

Damer, D. E. & Melendres, L. T. (2011). “Tackling test anxiety”: A group for college

students. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 36(3), 163-177. DOI:

10.1080/01933922.2011.586016

34

Dan, O. & Raz, S. (2012). The relationships among ADHD, self-esteem, and test anxiety

in young adults. Journal of Attentional Disorders, 19(3), 231-239. DOI:

10.1177/1087054712454571

Disability Employment 101: Appendix IV: Reasonable Accommodations and the ADA.

(n.d.). Retrieved October 02, 2016, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/

list/osers/products/employmentguide/appendix-4.htm

Gregg, N. & Nelson, J. M. (2012). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of extra time as a

testing accommodation for transitioning adolescents with learning disabilities:

More questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 128-138.

DOI: 10.1177/0022219409355484.

Groff, B. D., Baron, R. S., & Moore, D. L. (1983). Distraction, attentional conflict, and

drivelike behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 359–380.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(83)90028-8

Guerin, B. (1983). Social facilitation and social monitoring: A test of three models.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), 203–214. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-

8309.1983.tb00585.x

Harrison, J. R., Bunford, N., Evans, S. W., & Owens, J. S. (2013). Educational

accommodations for students with behavioral challenges: A systematic review of

the literature. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 551-597. DOI:

10.3102/0034654313497517

35

Kessler, R. C., Adler, L. B. R., Biederman, J., Conners, C. K., Demler, O., Faraone, S.

V., . . . Zaslavsky, A. M. (2006). The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in

the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey replication.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 716-723.

Klassen, L. J., Katzman, M. A., & Chokka, P. (2010). Adult ADHD and its

comorbidities, with a focus on bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders,

124, 1-8.

Lee, K. S., Osborne, R. E., Hayes, K. A., & Simoes, R. A. (2008). The effects of pacing

on the academic testing performance of college students with ADHD: A mixed

methods study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 123-141.

DOI: 10.2190/EC.39.2.b

Lee, K. S., Osborne, R. E., & Carpenter, D. N. (2010). Testing accommodations for

university students with AD/HD: Computerized vs. paper-pencil/regular vs.

extended time. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 443-458. DOI:

10.2190/EC.42.4.e

Lewandowski, L., Cohen, J., & Lovett, B. J. (2013). Effects of extended time allotments

on reading comprehension performance of college students with and without

learning disabilities. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 326-336. DOI:

10.1177/0734282912462693

Miller, L. A., Lewandowski, L. J., & Antshel, K. M. (2015). Effects of extended time for

college students with and without ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 19(8),

678-686. DOI:10.1177/1087054713483308

36

Ofiesh, N., Moniz, E., & Bisagno, J. (2015). Voices of university students with ADHD

about test-taking: Behaviors, needs, and strategies. Journal of Postsecondary

Education and Disability, 28, 109-120.

Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 223-240. DOI:

10.1207/s15327752jpa5202_4

Reynolds, W. M., Ramirez, M. P., Magriña, A., & Allen, J. E. (1980). Initial

development and validation of the academic self-concept scale. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 1013-1016.

DOI: 10.1177/001316448004000428

Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1975). The motivating effects of distraction on task

performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 956–963.

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.956

Schatz, B. D. & Rostain, A. L. (2006). ADHD with comorbid anxiety: A review of the

current literature. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10, 141-149.

Shobe, E., Brewin, A., & Carmak, S. (2005). A simple visualization exercise for reducing

test anxiety and improving performance on difficult math tests. Journal of Worry

and Affective Experience, 1, 34–52.

Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez, H. P., Taylor, C. J., Anton, E. D., Algaze, B., Ross, G.R., &

Westberry, L. G. (1980). Manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI). Redwood

City, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

37

Tabassam, W. & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy

beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 141-151.

DOI: 10.2307/1511280

Tagayuna, A., Stodden, R. A., Chang, C., Zeleznik, M. E., & Whelley, T. A. (2005). A

two-year comparison of support provision for persons with disabilities in

postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 13-21.

Taylor, J. & Deane, F. P. (2002). Development of a short form of the test anxiety

inventory (TAI). The Journal of General Psychology, 129(2), 127-136. DOI:

10.1080/00221300209603133

Thomas, C. R. & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-

concept clarity and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 77, 101-119.

Wadley, M. & Liljequist, L. (2013). The effect of extended test time for students with

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Postsecondary Education and

Disability, 26(3), 263-271.

Weyandt, L. L. & DuPaul, G. (2006). ADHD in college students. Journal of Attention

Disorders, 10, 9-19. DOI: 10.1177/1087054705286061

Weyandt, L. L., DuPaul, G. J., Verdi, G., Rossi, J. S., Swentosky, A. J., Vilardo, B. S.,

O’Dell, S. M., & Carson, K. S. (2013). The performance of college students with

and without ADHD: Neuropsychological, academic, and psychosocial

38

functioning. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 421-

435. DOI: 10.1007/s10862-013-9351-8

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum.